RANGOO KACHHAP Vs. KARMA KACHHAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 20/12/2021 (Annexure-2 to the present petition) passed by Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi in Original (Partition) Suit No. 70/2020, whereby the petitioners have been directed to remove the defects in the plaint and to take steps for adding the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as party defendant.

(2.) Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the plaintiffs/petitioners have instituted a partition suit being Original (Partition) Suit No. 70 of 2020 pending in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi seeking relief of a preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiffs.. share in the suit property and after appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner, separate Takhta of the plaintiffs be carved out, decree be made final and the plaintiffs be put in Khas and exclusive possession of the same. In the said suit, the Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi vide impugned order dtd. 20/12/2021 has, however, directed the petitioners to add the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as defendant observing that the parties are members of Schedule Tribe and the case is at initial stage and as such, they shall not be prejudiced if the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is added as party to the suit. It has further been observed that to avoid any future complication with respect to the parties to the suit which may be raised by the proposed defendant, it is appropriate to add the said authority as party-defendant in the suit in terms with proviso to Order-I Rule 3 CPC, which is a mandatory provision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the court below has misconstrued the settled proposition of law as envisaged under Sec. 46(3-A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, which provides that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has to be a necessary party in all suits of civil nature relating to any holding or portion thereof in which one of the parties to the suit is a member of Schedule Tribe and the other is not a member of Schedule Tribe. It is also submitted that learned Sub-Judge-I has not considered Sec. 46(3-A) of the Act, 1908 in its true perspective as the present partition suit has been filed claiming specific share in the suit property between the co-sharers who are the members of Schedule Tribe and all the parties are joint owners of the suit property. Hence, State Amendments (Bihar) inserted vide Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 by which the said proviso was added in Order-I Rule 3 CPC for its application to the Scheduled Areas in the erstwhile State of Bihar has no application in the facts and circumstance of the present case. As such, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is not a necessary party in the said suit.